is King Kong racist?

[fent]

putting this in the potomac for obvious reasons.

Is "King Kong" racist?

Lots of people say it is. And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new "Kong" is a huge hit?

Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism. That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson. (In addition, a "Kong" wannabe, "Mighty Joe Young," has been made twice.)

Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in Slate.com, notes the "implicit racism of 'King Kong' - the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes." Indeed, a Google search using the words "King Kong racism" yielded 490,000 hits.

Comparing the new film with the original, The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter observed, "It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid."

SOURCE (http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin154551776dec15,0,2915817.column)

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, some people have way too much time of their hands.

[CNYSkinFan]

Sometimes an 80 foot Gorilla is just an 80 foot Gorilla....

[smoak]

Utter and complete insanity.

I like Godzilla better? Does that mean I hate my country and want to be a terrorist? Makes about the same amount of sense to me.

[Spence]

This isn't a new issue at all. How Jackson would handle the race and cultural issues were raised immediately after he announced "King Kong" would be first film project after LotR.

Africans and African-Americans were often referred to as monkeys by whites. Many people saw Kong as a stand-in for Africans and his "romance" with the white actress, played by Fay Wray, as a commentary on the taboo subject of romance between a white woman and a black man. And since Kong dies for this romance [which happened more than once to black men], this line of discussion has proven quite potent.

There are also racial discussions surrounding the natives and what it means when the whites show up on their island [colonialists?], run around doing as they please, and then take Kong back to New York as a captive. Many people saw the image of Kong in chains as a parable about the way many Africans arrived in North America during the slave trade days. One must remember that it was not uncommon for African men and women to be paraded through museums in Europe and North America as part of zoological exhibits. Often in the 19th century a zoological exhibit would contain an African animal, an African or two, and then another African animal -- reinforcing in the minds of the viewers that African humans were little different from the animals who shared their continent.

There are several racial and cultural issues surrounding Kong that people commented upon when the movie was released in 1933 and have continued to comment upon more than 70 years later. Those are all legitimate points of discussion and I'll be watching to see how Jackson treats these issues or avoids treating these issues.

Mainly, though, as I stated in the Apache, I want to see a big monkey whalin' on a dinosaur.

[Spence]

Utter and complete insanity.

I like Godzilla better? Does that mean I hate my country and want to be a terrorist? Makes about the same amount of sense to me.Godzilla is Japanese commentary about the American use of nuclear weapons against Japan and testing of nuclear weapons in the south Pacific.

[C-7]

I guess just about anything can be prejudice, racist or offensive, depending on how you look at it.

[fent]

Mainly, though, as I stated in the Apache, I want to see a big monkey whalin' on a dinosaur.

how does three at once sound?

[RedskinsDave]

This isn't a new issue at all. How Jackson would handle the race and cultural issues were raised immediately after he announced "King Kong" would be first film project after LotR.

Africans and African-Americans were often referred to as monkeys by whites. Many people saw Kong as a stand-in for Africans and his "romance" with the white actress, played by Fay Wray, as a commentary on the taboo subject of romance between a white woman and a black man. And since Kong dies for this romance [which happened more than once to black men], this line of discussion has proven quite potent.

There are also racial discussions surrounding the natives and what it means when the whites show up on their island [colonialists?], run around doing as they please, and then take Kong back to New York as a captive. Many people saw the image of Kong in chains as a parable about the way many Africans arrived in North America during the slave trade days. One must remember that it was not uncommon for African men and women to be paraded through museums in Europe and North America as part of zoological exhibits. Often in the 19th century a zoological exhibit would contain an African animal, an African or two, and then another African animal -- reinforcing in the minds of the viewers that African humans were little different from the animals who shared their continent.

There are several racial and cultural issues surrounding Kong that people commented upon when the movie was released in 1933 and have continued to comment upon more than 70 years later. Those are all legitimate points of discussion and I'll be watching to see how Jackson treats these issues or avoids treating these issues.

Mainly, though, as I stated in the Apache, I want to see a big moneky whalin' on a dinosaur.

No, they really aren't. I guess dracula is a metaphor that all eastern europeans are blood suckers. Stuff like this makes me want to puke. Cries like this do NOTHING at all to help legitimate cries of racism and explains why so many people have become numb to them.

[Spence]

how does three at once sound?3 times the fun!

[Spence]

No, they really aren't. I guess dracula is a metaphor that all eastern europeans are blood suckers. Stuff like this makes me want to puke. Cries like this do NOTHING at all to help legitimate cries of racism and explains why so many people have become numb to them.Well, Dave, a ton of people over the years disagree with you. If you think stories mean only what is obvious then you're missing a lot. Subtext is important. As a matter of fact, yes, much of "Dracula" is about Eastern Europeans. One must understand what is going on in the mind of the author when a story is written. "Dracula" represents the English fear of/concern about massive immigration to Great Britain from eastern Europe, especially Jews. The other great fear of Victorian England in the late 19th century was a disease of the blood that ravaged the country, syphilis. Syphilis is a sexually-transmitted disease and it is no coincidence that Stoker's description of a vampire attack -- whether upon Lucy or Jonathon Harker -- makes the violation seem a lot like a sex act, sometimes rape. Many British believed, incorrectly, that syphilis was brought to England by nasty Eastern European Jews who were lusting after pure English women. The parallels are numerous and not terribly subtle.

Of course, if one wishes one can enjoy "Dracula" as simply one of the great works of English literature in the last 200 years. That's fine. But to suggest that Stoker was just trying to write a vampire story is absurd.

And for the record, my post above about "King Kong" does not suggest or imply that the movie is racist. Many have said that, but others -- such as myself -- believe that much of the movie is a commentary on racism. That is, the movie comments about the evils of racism, but is not racist itself.

[Axegrinder]

Any correlation between this story and Michael Jackson going to Bahrain is strictly coincidental.

[RedskinsDave]

Any correlation between this story and Michael Jackson going to Bahrain is strictly coincidental.

What does a pedophile white guy going to the middle east have to do with this?

[akhhorus]

"Birth of a Nation", thats racist. "Ernest Saves Christmas", thats racist. King Kong is racist if you buy into the whole sexual motiff of racism. And thats a concept that was in full effect in the 1930s, but hasn't been an issue for awhile in mainstream America.

[Spence]

"Ernest Saves Christmas", thats racist.That's slander! "Ernest Save Christmas" is a expertly-crafted examination of race and religion upon the lives of drooling hicks during the month of December.

[CNYSkinFan]

While the parrallels of king kong and now Dracula are all valid in my mind, it is quite another to call it "racist". Both pieces of work were works of art that reflected upon the feelings and fears of the time. Racism implies that it was purposefully done rather then a product of the Author's subconscious desires creeping into imagery and thematic elements. As someone who has dabbled in creative writing and the creation of dramatic imagery I know that my fears and bias creep into whatever I do. You write what you know and or feel. Almost all good works are a product of the emotions felt by the author. Now If I sat down and said "I want to stop white women from marrying black men but I can't write that so I will substitute an 80 foot Gorilla" then that would be racist.

And until anyone shows me that proof I will still view Kong and Dracula as what they are, creations of very vivid authors.

[Spence]

As someone who has dabbled in creative writing and the creation of dramatic imagery I know that my fears and bias creep into whatever I do.Ah, that explains your short story "How Billy the Texas Cowboy was Murdered by 53 Angry American Indians one Cold December Afternoon." I thought there was some hidden subtext to that one...

[BurgundyNGold]

This whole discussion reminds of how potheads analyze Dead music. Why does everything have to be metaphorical or have some underlying subtext? If you look long enough at anything, you can find what you're looking for.

King Kong was an innovative movie in 1933, a reason to see Jessica Lange's breasts in the 1976 and an excuse for everyone who already knows how the whole story goes to feast on eye candy for a couple of hours.

As for "Ernest Saves Christmas", I personally thought that "Ernest Goes to Camp" and "Ernest Scared Stupid" -- while cinematic masterpieces in many ways -- were far more egregious examples of racism in America.

[CNYSkinFan]

Ah, that explains your short story "How Billy the Texas Cowboy was Murdered by 53 Angry American Indians one Cold December Afternoon." I thought there was some hidden subtext to that one...

I am working on the sequel called "Eli the Inaccurate Giant is scalped by Taylor the Vengeful Young Indian Warrior"

[CNYSkinFan]

This whole discussion reminds of how potheads analyze Dead music. Why does everything have to be metaphorical or have some underlying subtext? If you look long enough at anything, you can find what you're looking for.

King Kong was an innovative movie in 1933, a reason to see Jessica Lange's breasts in the 1976 and an excuse for everyone who already knows how the whole story goes to feast on eye candy for a couple of hours.

As for "Ernest Saves Christmas", I personally thought that "Ernest Goes to Camp" and "Ernest Scared Stupid" -- while cinematic masterpieces in many ways -- were far more egregious examples of racism in America.

If Ernest is symbolized as Racism are we all a collective Vern, trying to close the window and ignoring the Racism around us?

[Santheb]

Wait wait wait...Ernest was racist?

[CNYSkinFan]

Wait wait wait...Ernest was racist?
Well he was from SC (just kidding Akh)

[akhhorus]

That's slander! "Ernest Save Christmas" is a expertly-crafted examination of race and religion upon the lives of drooling hicks during the month of December.

I admit the theatrical version was too metaphorical, but the director's cut with the alternate ending that finished with "Hey Vern, help me burn this cross in this interracial couple's yard" was as clear as the summer sun.

[BurgundyNGold]

If Ernest is symbolized as Racism are we all a collective Vern, trying to close the window and ignoring the Racism around us?
Actually, I was going for things like the dark portrayal of Eartha Kitt -- an African-Amercian woman -- as a spooky witch woman who had a troll that lived in her yard. The troll, of couse, being a not-so-veiled swipe at Kwaze Mfume.

But I can go with the Vern thing too.

:D

[CNYSkinFan]

I admit the theatrical version was too metaphorical, but the director's cut with the alternate ending that finished with "Hey Vern, help me burn this cross in this interracial couple's yard" was as clear as the summer sun.

You have to admit though the scene where Ernest tries to syphon gas from Vern's 72 Pinto for the cross and then set himself on fire was pretty funny though.....

[akhhorus]

Well he was from SC (just kidding Akh)

What's sad about SC and racism is that my ex-gf's cousin lived in this house in the fancy part of Charleston, and when he decided to get a sex change, none of his neighbors or family had a bad word to say about him...umm..her. But when (s)he decided to date and marry an rich African-American lawyer, that was it. (S)he was outcast for that. So in SC, you can get your penis cut off and boobs made on your chest, thats fine, but God help you if you date interracially.

[akhhorus]

You have to admit though the scene where Ernest tries to syphon gas from Vern's 72 Pinto for the cross and then set himself on fire was pretty funny though.....

It went better for Ernest than his attempt to make a suicide bomber's vest in "Ernest goes to Camp"...

[BurgundyNGold]

It went better for Ernest than his attempt to make a suicide bomber's vest in "Ernest goes to Camp"...
Tell me about it. Mashed potatoes with green bean shrapnel everywhere.

[CNYSkinFan]

What's sad about SC and racism is that my ex-gf's cousin lived in this house in the fancy part of Charleston, and when he decided to get a sex change, none of his neighbors or family had a bad word to say about him...umm..her. But when (s)he decided to date and marry an rich African-American lawyer, that was it. (S)he was outcast for that. So in SC, you can get your penis cut off and boobs made on your chest, thats fine, but God help you if you date interracially.

That is one of the best stories I have ever heard.......classic

[BurgundyNGold]

That is one of the best stories I have ever heard.......classic
A new Flyover Country anecdote for you? ;)

[CNYSkinFan]

A new Flyover Country anecdote for you? ;)

SC is not neccesarily fly over...I have driven through there several times as well. However whether youn are flying or driving you still are annoyed by South of The Border billboards....In fact I think you can see it from space.

[Spence]

King Kong..a reason to see Jessica Lange's breasts in the 1976Nothing could redeem that piece of trash. Not even Jessica Lange's knockers.

[BurgundyNGold]

SC is not neccesarily fly over...I have driven through there several times as well. However whether youn are flying or driving you still are annoyed by South of The Border billboards....In fact I think you can see it from space.
Pedro says "Get More Tang at South of the Border"

[CNYSkinFan]

Pedro says "Get More Tang at South of the Border"

:lol1:

[MoeRedskins]

What's sad about SC and racism is that my ex-gf's cousin lived in this house in the fancy part of Charleston, and when he decided to get a sex change, none of his neighbors or family had a bad word to say about him...umm..her. But when (s)he decided to date and marry an rich African-American lawyer, that was it. (S)he was outcast for that. So in SC, you can get your penis cut off and boobs made on your chest, thats fine, but God help you if you date interracially.

I feel so much more educated knowing I willing paid to go to school in that state.:bangdesk:

The funniest part about all of the racism in SC is that they hate "yankees" more then any other race in the world. I guess their still bitter about that whole war of northern aggression.

Oh, and King Kong is racist only if you want it to be. Hell, the pencils we have in our office supply room are called "black warriors." They are coated with a black cover and I have never lost a pencil fight with one. But if you wanted too, you could find something racist with that name.

[akhhorus]

Pedro says "Get More Tang at South of the Border"

Thats a funny joke because all South of the Border is now is massage parlors and strip clubs.....

[CNYSkinFan]

Thats a funny joke because all South of the Border is now is massage parlors and strip clubs.....

And the wife wanted to stop there this last time through and I said no.....:banghead:

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats a funny joke because all South of the Border is now is massage parlors and strip clubs.....
Gotta love those double entendres. :D

[Evilsockm]

"Racist" is an awfully strong word to use here. Is the movie "Racist"? I'd have to say heck no. Is it possibly a subtle historical racial allegory? Possibly, yes.

[Keino]

It seems to me that if it is a parable showing the inherent evils of racism, then it therefore cannot be racist.

With that said, Hollywood has always been there to reinforce negative images and stereotypes about people of color. From Birth of a Nation which was overtly racist with it's intent to strike fear into the white populous about the sexual nature of black men and their proclivity to raping white women to Step N Fetch Amos and Andy who, incidently are contemporaries of the original Kong film, to the Mammy and Minstrel traditions (also contemporaries) that can be seen permeating throughout hollywood up through the 70's which is known in Film history as the "Blacksploitation" era of film, featuring street stereotypes like Superfly, Foxy Brown, The Mack and to some extent Shaft.

Was "Planet of the Apes" a similar commentary? Perhaps. Are Bugs Bunny cartoons featuring the savage Native American or the Savage Abhoriginal person from either Australia or Africa who responds to Bugs' shenaningans with "Oooga booga ooga" while jumping up and down, spear in hand of course, racist? Absolutely and one can still see these images.

My personal opinion is that there are racial overtones and undertones related to everything produced in Hollywood (and life in America generally speaking). Some of it has been to tear down barriers, such as "Look whos coming for Dinner" featuring Sidney Portier and the Modern version in which the tables are turned (featuring Austin Koutcher and Bernie Mac). I've always thought that the original Kong movie was very much representative of the Black experience in America, whether it was intentional or not. The bondage and exploitation angles touched upon, notwithstanding, but also in the manner in which he was killed once he went "crazy" and fought to be free. In Planet of the Apes, I had no Problem seeing Charleston Heston (Especially in light of his comments during the Moore film, Bowling for Columbine many years later of course) say "Get your hand off of me you damn dirty ape" and substituting the word "Ape" for the N word upon not being able to be silent anymore given that his world was literally turned upside down.

The fact is, Spence is right. Art is and always has been a way to make social commentary. If you think Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is really about suggesting that England eat the Children, then you are seriously disillusioned. The same goes for the other artistic mediums. Is Shirley Jackson really just writing about a lottery in her short story, or is she making some other underlying commentary about senseless traditions? Was Frankenstein really just about a mad scientist who tries to artificially create life?

The fact is the original Kong (in my estimation) movie was very much racially oriented, and given the times was perhaps the only way for the artist and creator of the story to make his commentary without being blacklisted by those who sought to maintain the status quo or without fear of other forms of backlash. The only problem with Subtelty is that the message gets blurred over time AND often times it goes over the heads of the intended audience.

If you all think this is just BS and that these images are not damaging and people should just get over it etc etc etc, I highly suggest you check out Spike Lee's treatment of this very subject in the film "Bamboozled". It will give you some perspective and some appreciation if you are willing to view with an open mind.

[BurgundyNGold]

It seems to me that if it is a parable showing the inherent evils of racism, then it therefore cannot be racist.
I don't know if it racist or not, but the bondage and freedom parallels are intriguing, if not intentional.

With that said, Hollywood has always been there to reinforce negative images and stereotypes about people of color. From Birth of a Nation which was overtly racist with it's intent to strike fear into the white populous about the sexual nature of black men and their proclivity to raping white women to Step N Fetch Amos and Andy who, incidently are contemporaries of the original Kong film, to the Mammy and Minstrel traditions (also contemporaries) that can be seen permeating throughout hollywood up through the 70's which is known in Film history as the "Blacksploitation" era of film, featuring street stereotypes like Superfly, Foxy Brown, The Mack and to some extent Shaft.
Agreed. For decades, there were no black, Asian or Latin faces in Hollywood. Black characters were played by white actors in black face. Asian roles such as Charlie Chan -- also an overtly stereotypical Confusius spewing Chinese man -- was played by a white man. Even as late as 1972, the producers of the TV show "Kung Fu" chose to bypass an actual Asian who knew Kung Fu in Bruce Lee for a white actor in David Carradine. To top that off, in 50 years of western films and TV shows, nearly all Mexicans or Native Americans were played by whites.

When blacks were actually on film, it seemed as if Hollywood went out of their way to find the darkest African American they could, almost to specifically bolster the already disproportionate on-camera contrast between the skin color of the actor and the whites of their eyes that was inherent to black and white film. Even then, most of the roles strictly promotede or further reinforced the perception of the African American as an afterthought in American society, often as a domestic servant.

Later on, of course, there were richer portrayals of African Americans as characters promoted by the likes of Sidney Poitier and, to a lesser extent, Bill Cosby. Unfortunately, for all of the advancement of shows like "Good Times" and "Sanford & Son", they were often set in poor urban environments with the lead characters hovering just above or below the poverty level and too often played on sterotypes across the board.

Was "Planet of the Apes" a similar commentary? Perhaps.
Possibly, but these were certainly not overt. At the point where it is not readily apparent, I have to go with the more innocent explanation. After all, if racism was the intent, if the audience was not to get that impression en mass, they would have done a pretty poor job of telling the story, no?

Are Bugs Bunny cartoons featuring the savage Native American or the Savage Abhoriginal person from either Australia or Africa who responds to Bugs' shenaningans with "Oooga booga ooga" while jumping up and down, spear in hand of course, racist? Absolutely and one can still see these images.
These observations I agree with. Many of the Buggs Bunny (and more than a few Disney) cartoons were absolutely riddled with racial sterotypes or overtures. In the case of tribal representations, however, it should be pointed out that the world 80 years ago was very much more undiscovered than the world of today. The portrayal of tribal peoples often reflected the ignorance that the entire western world had of, say, the people of Irian jaya (now Borneo) at the time.

Another thought. While hailed by many for how they showed black and white children playing together without regard for color, the screenwriters of "The Little Rascals" never missed an opportunity to play on racial sterotypes regarding Stymie, Buckwheat or any of the shows other minor black castmembers over the years.

My personal opinion is that there are racial overtones and undertones related to everything produced in Hollywood (and life in America generally speaking). Some of it has been to tear down barriers, such as "Look whos coming for Dinner" featuring Sidney Portier and the Modern version in which the tables are turned (featuring Austin Koutcher and Bernie Mac). I've always thought that the original Kong movie was very much representative of the Black experience in America, whether it was intentional or not. The bondage and exploitation angles touched upon, notwithstanding, but also in the manner in which he was killed once he went "crazy" and fought to be free. In Planet of the Apes, I had no Problem seeing Charleston Heston (Especially in light of his comments during the Moore film, Bowling for Columbine many years later of course) say "Get your hand off of me you damn dirty ape" and substituting the word "Ape" for the N word upon not being able to be silent anymore given that his world was literally turned upside down.
Some of this I can certainly agree with. Some of it is reaching a bit for my tastes. Charleton Heston came off looking like a total loon in that Moore interview. I'm sure it was edited for effect, as well. I wouldn't be so quick to use any of that for anything. Besides, it's not like Heston wrote, directed or produced that film. He played a role.

The fact is, Spence is right. Art is and always has been a way to make social commentary. If you think Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is really about suggesting that England eat the Children, then you are seriously disillusioned. The same goes for the other artistic mediums. Is Shirley Jackson really just writing about a lottery in her short story, or is she making some other underlying commentary about senseless traditions? Was Frankenstein really just about a mad scientist who tries to artificially create life?
I think there can be symbolism in art. However, I also believe that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I mean, if my phone number starts out 420, does that mean that it I smoke weed all day [insert PB joke here] or just some coincidence?

The fact is the original Kong (in my estimation) movie was very much racially oriented, and given the times was perhaps the only way for the artist and creator of the story to make his commentary without being blacklisted by those who sought to maintain the status quo or without fear of other forms of backlash. The only problem with Subtelty is that the message gets blurred over time AND often times it goes over the heads of the intended audience.
To me, there are too many left turns in this paragraph. The fact is that there is more evidence that the real Paul McCartney is dead than there is for the Kong suggestion.

If you all think this is just BS and that these images are not damaging and people should just get over it etc etc etc, I highly suggest you check out Spike Lee's treatment of this very subject in the film "Bamboozled". It will give you some perspective and some appreciation if you are willing to view with an open mind.
I actually like Spike Lee as a director. The problem is that Spike Lee has racism on the brain. Well, that and the Knicks. He sees racism at every turn. Somehow I don't think that Spike Lee would be able to put out any less of a position piece film on racism any less than Michal Moore put out a position piece film on Iraq.

[Keino]

I'd suggest seeing the movie anyway, despite the fact that you are predisposed to feling a certain way about the director in question.

As for the paragrpah with too many left turns...ok. The phrase "In my estimation" certainly qualifies it as opinion and that's exactly what it is.

[Spence]

Sometimes how the subtext of a movie is interpreted changes with the times. For many years "Planet of the Apes" was widely regarded as a parable about racism [white guy grabbed in a net and held in a cage with other white people by a group of masters who regard their captives as inferior], now many think of it as a tale about animal rights. By the way, I don't actually recommend watching the other "Ape" movies.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'd suggest seeing the movie anyway, despite the fact that you are predisposed to feling a certain way about the director in question.
I'll put it on my Netflix list.

As for the paragrpah with too many left turns...ok. The phrase "In my estimation" certainly qualifies it as opinion and that's exactly what it is.
That's the beauty of art. It can be interpreted many ways and none of them are wrong. But only mine are right. :D

[BurgundyNGold]

Sometimes how the subtext of a movie is interpreted changes with the times. For many years "Planet of the Apes" was widely regarded as a parable about racism [white guy grabbed in a net and held in a cage with other white people by a group of masters who regard their captives as inferior], now many think of it as a tale about animal rights. By the way, I don't actually recommend watching the other "Ape" movies.
I would think that the three different types of apes -- those derived from chimpanzees, thoses derived from orangutans and those derived from silverbacks -- would yield an interesting discussion if we could somehow apply a template of race to it. After all, wasn't it the darkest apes that were portrayed as the less intelligent ones, the more physical apes and the soliders?

[Keino]

BNG Im not suggesting that Planet of the Apes is racist, in fact, I'm merely saying that it is a commentary on the conditions racism created.....in other words, the complete opposite.

Something can be Racial without being Racist....if that makes any sense.

Good point Spence about subtext interpretation changing with time. That was my point about subtelty and a creator's intended audience for such commentary.

[Keino]

I would think that the three different types of apes -- those derived from chimpanzees, thoses derived from orangutans and those derived from silverbacks -- would yield an interesting discussion if we could somehow apply a template of race to it. After all, wasn't it the darkest apes that were portrayed as the less intelligent ones, the more physical apes and the soliders?

Now you sound like a pothead....heh heh heh.

YES. I think the apes represent people of color. Chimps being the scientists, the Orangutan's being the Spiritualists while the Gorillas represented the soldiers. Of course this is relating to the original version with Roddy McDowell and Heston, not the Marky Mark Wahlberg version (which was good in it's own way, but not remotely the same movie).

[Chief Seeway]

I would think that the three different types of apes -- those derived from chimpanzees, thoses derived from orangutans and those derived from silverbacks -- would yield an interesting discussion if we could somehow apply a template of race to it. After all, wasn't it the darkest apes that were portrayed as the less intelligent ones, the more physical apes and the soliders?

In the last movie with that Dirk Digler guy, a chimp was the general and the silverbacks were the military/security. I think the orangutans were in the higher government positions, senators or something like that.

[Keino]

In the last movie with that Dirk Digler guy, a chimp was the general and the silverbacks were the military/security. I think the orangutans were in the higher government positions, senators or something like that.

Yea I think BNG and I both are speaking to the original version of the movie.

It may be that the recent version went out of its way to not be like the first movie in this regard.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG Im not suggesting that Planet of the Apes is racist, in fact, I'm merely saying that it is a commentary on the conditions racism created.....in other words, the complete opposite.

Something can be Racial without being Racist....if that makes any sense.

Good point Spence about subtext interpretation changing with time. That was my point about subtelty and a creator's intended audience for such commentary.
There might very well be racial undercurrents in "Planet of the Apes". I supplied some conjecture to that effect in my reply to Spence. I just think that if they're present, they're too subtle to apply definitively. Unlike some of the mannerisms for a few of the alien species in new batch of Star Wars movies. IMO, the mannerisms of those species can be seen as paralleling racial sterotypes in modern society quite clearly.

And you can absolutely say that a movie can be "racial", but not "racist". After all, "Roots" was certainly racial, but it was definitely not racist.

[Spence]

The gorillas were the warrior caste. I don't think they were intended to be stupid, merely aggressive. I suspect this had something to do with the mistaken notion people had about gorillas being a very aggressive type of ape. Chimps were the intellectual caste, probably because their DNA is so similar to our own and people find them easy to train and teach. I believe Dr Zaius [spelling?] was an orangutan because that type of monkey has produced some of our finest cardiac surgeons.

[Chief Seeway]

Yea I think BNG and I both are speaking to the original version of the movie.

It may be that the recent version went out of its way to not be like the first movie in this regard.

Also 30 some odd years of costume design played a part. The original apes looked the same except skin tone. In the most recent picture it was clear which species was which.

[Keino]

The gorillas were the warrior caste. I don't think they were intended to be stupid, merely aggressive. I suspect this had something to do with the mistaken notion people had about gorillas being a very aggressive type of ape. Chimps were the intellectual caste, probably because their DNA is so similar to our own and people find them easy to train and teach. I believe Dr Zaius [spelling?] was an orangutan because that type of monkey has produced some of our finest cardiac surgeons.


LMAO!!!!!!

[Paintedbird]

Well, Dave, a ton of people over the years disagree with you. If you think stories mean only what is obvious then you're missing a lot. Subtext is important. As a matter of fact, yes, much of "Dracula" is about Eastern Europeans. One must understand what is going on in the mind of the author when a story is written. "Dracula" represents the English fear of/concern about massive immigration to Great Britain from eastern Europe, especially Jews. The other great fear of Victorian England in the late 19th century was a disease of the blood that ravaged the country, syphilis. Syphilis is a sexually-transmitted disease and it is no coincidence that Stoker's description of a vampire attack -- whether upon Lucy or Jonathon Harker -- makes the violation seem a lot like a sex act, sometimes rape. Many British believed, incorrectly, that syphilis was brought to England by nasty Eastern European Jews who were lusting after pure English women. The parallels are numerous and not terribly subtle.

Of course, if one wishes one can enjoy "Dracula" as simply one of the great works of English literature in the last 200 years. That's fine. But to suggest that Stoker was just trying to write a vampire story is absurd.

And for the record, my post above about "King Kong" does not suggest or imply that the movie is racist. Many have said that, but others -- such as myself -- believe that much of the movie is a commentary on racism. That is, the movie comments about the evils of racism, but is not racist itself.

Note: Stoker was a wimpy little man who slavishly loved (as a homosexual)and pathetically followed a rather cruel and dominating British actor (as the maniac Renfield followed and worshipped Dracula). He felt tainted, humiliated, abused, the helpless victim of sexual madness and disease involving a (fanged) Byronic, cloaked figure (Eastern European in appearance as Spense says). In one of his even crazier works he imagines a sucking womb of earth inexorably drawing him in, probably revealing an insane fear of the female organ. Dracula's overblown style and content match, probably, by madness and luck rather than conscious art. The work might be true Brut Art-- the desidera of a confused, vengeful and broken psyche arising as essentially fantastical and horrifying dream. None of Stoker's other works are remotely coherent.

[Paintedbird]

BNG Im not suggesting that Planet of the Apes is racist, in fact, I'm merely saying that it is a commentary on the conditions racism created.....in other words, the complete opposite.

Something can be Racial without being Racist....if that makes any sense.

Good point Spence about subtext interpretation changing with time. That was my point about subtelty and a creator's intended audience for such commentary.


Probably off point, but what the heck. A given audience's hipness to or depth of understanding of an artistic work in relation to it's referential aspects at a given time has nothing to do with subtext. Subtext is a fixed, unvarying property independent of the audience, embued by the author, and existing by suggestion between the lines and by the lines of a script. If an audience doesn't get it, the audience simply doesn't get it. If the audience gets it wrong, the audience gets it wrong. That's not to say that the fault is not the fault of the artist, it usually is. But, the point is, the subtext doesn't change according to the audience's perception.

Writers who use subtext do not do so so that the audience can participate in the creative process with them. If you were to project some absurdity between two of Hamlet's lines, Shakespeare come to life would not likely smile and nod like a fool. He would probably tell you that that was not what he meant at all and that if you wanted to understand him you'd better spend some time in closer study of his work.

I guarantee you that the original maker of King Kong would be absolutely unrepentant of having created what you may think to be a racist movie. It was not a racist movie in his mind; he did nothing to make it a racist movie; there's much more disrespect for pampered city folk in it than there is any other kind of social comment; and he would think you to be unfair to the extreme, probably mutter to himself: Did they want me to dress the canibals in tuxedoes; and think you were nuts.

Kong-- a put down of black people! The maker of Kong loved Kong, regarded him as a hero. That's what's between the lines and will always be between the lines.

[BurgundyNGold]

Probably off point, but what the heck. A given audience's hipness to or depth of understanding of an artistic work in relation to it's referential aspects at a given time has nothing to do with subtext. Subtext is a fixed, unvarying property independent of the audience, embued by the author, and existing by suggestion between the lines and by the lines of a script. If an audience doesn't get it, the audience simply doesn't get it. If the audience gets it wrong, the audience gets it wrong. That's not to say that the fault is not the fault of the artist, it usually is. But, the point is, the subtext doesn't change according to the audience's perception.

Writers who use subtext do not do so so that the audience can participate in the creative process with them. If you were to project some absurdity between two of Hamlet's lines, Shakespeare come to life would not likely smile and nod like a fool. He would probably tell you that that was not what he meant at all and that if you wanted to understand him you'd better spend some time in closer study of his work.

I guarantee you that the original maker of King Kong would be absolutely unrepentant of having created what you may think to be a racist movie. It was not a racist movie in his mind; he did nothing to make it a racist movie; there's much more disrespect for pampered city folk in it than there is any other kind of social comment; and he would think you to be unfair to the extreme, probably mutter to himself: Did they want me to dress the canibals in tuxedoes; and think you were nuts.

Kong-- a put down of black people! The maker of Kong loved Kong, regarded him as a hero. That's what's between the lines and will always be between the lines.
As long as we're talking subtext, what was Kong's subtext? What was his unspoken motive? I would say it was to just get the hell out of Dodge and get back to the relative simplicity that he knew on the island, where he was king. That could make a case for Kong being a commentary against the urbanization of America during that time period.

[Paintedbird]

As long as we're talking subtext, what was Kong's subtext? What was his unspoken motive? I would say it was to just get the hell out of Dodge and get back to the relative simplicity that he knew on the island, where he was king. That could make a case for Kong being a commentary against the urbanization of America during that time period.

I think the theme of the movie was the superiority of the simple heart to the complex ( and therefore corrupt) head. Kong's subtext, however, is non-existent in that he has no text. If grunts and various little noises are considered text, the various subtextual encodings are "I love you...I want to be with you...I will protect you...I am hurt.... I am jealous....I am afraid...it is beautiful... etc. However, since Kong is an animal and his gestures and grunts, etc. are represented as accurate and full expressions of his feelings, there is again the sense in which there is no subtext except during those times when Kong is displaying attitudes which he is faking (when he pretends to reject her, etc.) When a human actor plays subtext he says one thing to another character on stage and reveals a more complex thing to the audience. As to Kong's motivation, I would say he cares much less about getting back to the island than he does getting and keeping the girl. He loves her. It's a love story. Beauty and the Beast.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think the theme of the movie was the superiority of the simple heart to the complex ( and therefore corrupt) head. Kong's subtext, however, is non-existent in that he has no text. If grunts and various little noises are considered text, the various subtextual encodings are "I love you...I want to be with you...I will protect you...I am hurt.... I am jealous....I am afraid...it is beautiful... etc. However, since Kong is an animal and his gestures and grunts, etc. are represented as accurate and full expressions of his feelings, there is again the sense in which there is no subtext except during those times when Kong is displaying attitudes which he is faking (when he pretends to reject her, etc.) When a human actor plays subtext he says one thing to another character on stage and reveals a more complex thing to the audience.
Obviously, Kong did not speak. The viewer could indentify with Kong nonetheless. The fact that he could not speak does not speak doesn't mean he did not have subtext, a la unspoken motivation.

[Paintedbird]

Obviously, Kong did not speak. The viewer could indentify with Kong nonetheless. The fact that he could not speak does not speak doesn't mean he did not have subtext, a la unspoken motivation.

I prefer to think of Kong's grunts and roars and gorilla posturings as text and Kong's more subtle movements, especially of the eyes, as conveying subtext.
Admittedly, I'm out on a vine here when discussing the subtext of an animal who does not speak in text in the usual sense, but, as you say, the audience can identity with Kong on a deeper level, so it's probably ok to say that Kong expresses subtext.